Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Factually, by the process of pure Statement Analysis, I can say that Matthew 28:1 affirms “Mary Magdalene” AND “the other Mary”.

P: Mary Magdalene

Q: the other Mary

P ^ Q

But if I declared that Matthew 28:1 contains a negation of Salome, there would be no text in that verse with which to make the “conclusion”. It would be an Unvalidated Claim. The same applies to the rest.

Quote

Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

P: Mary Magdalene

Q: “Mary the mother of James” (If this is NOT “the other Mary”, then another variable can be assigned. It's not going to make any difference.)

R: Salome

P ^ Q ^ R

Quote

Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

P: Mary Magdalene

Q: “Mary the mother of James”

S: Joanna

T: and other women

P ^ Q ^ S ^ T

Quote

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

P: Mary Magdalene

Therefore, working with the assumption that all Scripture is true, we have:

P ^ Q ^ R ^ S ^ T

This is a series of Logical Conjunctions, and generates the following Truth Table:

"One suggestion would be to do it in crayon to place it on their emotional/intellectual level."

Quote

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Quote

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

No variable for "came unto" in Matt 28:1, but “came to see”. Unlike Variables. INVALID COMPLAINT.

Quote

John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

A: “early”

B: “yet dark.”

IF it was “early” (A), THEN it was “yet dark”. (B) John 20:1

Working with the assumption that all Scripture is good "for instruction" (II Timothy 3:16):

Quote

Judges 9:33 And it shall be, in the morning, about the sunrise, you shall rise early and charge against the city. And, behold, he and the people with him will come out to you; and you shall do to him as you find your hand able to do .

C: “in the morning, about sunrise”

A: “early”

IF it was “in the morning, about sunrise” (C), THEN it was “early”. (A) Judges 9:33

IF it was “early” (A), THEN “it was yet dark”. (B) John 20:1

THEREFORE, IF it was “in the morning, about sunrise” (C), THEN it was “yet dark” (B).

Therefore, working with the assumption that all Scripture is true, we have:

None of that stuff you posted matters if scripture isn't true. You're currently posting on a website full of people who do not accept scripture as true. Do you have any proof that scripture is true? I'd be interested in hearing that, because I've never heard it. The whole thing is pretty worthless otherwise. I skimmed it to see if you put any proof in there that scripture is true, but I didn't see any.

What I'd like to know is why you just don't say something simple like... "Just because we have different accounts of who arrived at the tomb and what time of day it was, doesn't mean they were all contradictory... It could simply have meant that a person or two was left out in each gospel." That's the core of your argument is it not? All that fancy shit is just stupid. You did a lot of typing to get a point across that you could have written one line to explain.

The moral of the story, however, is that by your reasoning, not a single one of the gospel accounts actually have it correct as to who came to the tomb. You're making up your own gospel account taking all of them into consideration. You are saying that all 5 of those players were at the tomb, but if we look to the author of Matthew to know about who came to the tomb, the answer he gives is wrong. If we ask the author of Mark, the answer he gives is wrong. If we ask the author of Luke, the answer is wrong. If we ask the author of John, his answer is also wrong. Are you forgetting that all 4 of those books were written by different people, at different time periods, all with different ideas about who Jesus was and what he was doing? It makes a lot more sense as to why some people were said to be at the tomb and some were not if you look at it in that context.

It still doesn't matter. The whole story is a myth. Even if there was an empty tomb, the most reasonable conclusion is that somebody moved the fucking body. The most ridiculous conclusion is to say that he was resurrected.

A truth table is a lovely device.. that's completely worthless if you're using it to prove a premise that is essentially fundamentally flawed. No, I don't mean scripture, rather, I mean that the one thing you (and no one else either!) don't get to do is to create a new gospel narrative by smashing together the existing bible narratives.

In other words, you have no reason to believe that any of the individual gospel narratives are incomplete, and thus you are using them to support your preexisting conclusion.

In doing so, you commit the fallacy of the single cause, cherry picking, and a dash of special pleading for good measure.

You assume that the gospels are true, ergo if they are true, then the story must include all of the visitors to the tomb in some combination at the times listed. However, that very assumption is the fallacy of the single cause, the assumption that there is a simple way to reconcile the gospels because they must be true. It ignores the other possibilities: the authors were lying, the authors had incomplete information, the authors had agendas.. well, the list goes on. Until these have been eliminated, then you cannot simply assume a truth that would allow the resolution you propose.

Additionally, you have cherrypicked data, taking on only the facts that support your argument without dealing with the issues that do not.

Finally, you give the bible authority without substantial cause, leading you to special pleading: the Koran flat out says your bible is a lie, yet you ascribe it no particular value.

Now, we are just playing the apologetic game, so there's that - the last is me being nitpicky. However, this idea of 'smashing all the gospels together to get a single narrative' is a relatively modern invention, used as an apologetic to try to fix inconsistencies between the gospels. It is inherently flawed by the assumption that the Gospels were roughly equivalent in both timing and authorship; they are not.

EXO 33:20 And he said Thou canst not see my face for there shall no man see me and live (XX)EXO 33:10 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend (YY)Observation: Moses lived on (ZZ)

FACT: verse numbers were added later by the trtanslators, and do not necessarily reflect where a subject or object begins or ends.

"...it is knowledge that the Buybull was written by ignorant goat herders that had no idea how the world works."

THEORY:

A: "There was only ONE commission."

Luke 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

B: they were in Jerusalem.

Matt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Matt 28: 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

~B: they were in Galilee

IF "there was only on commission" (A), THEN they were in Jerusalem. (B) Luke 24:33, 47.

They were in Galilee (~B) Matt 28:16-20.

THEREFORE, there was NOT "only ONE commission". (~A)

A -> B~BTHEREFORE, ~A

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.

D: the Lord appears unto "two of them"

Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.E: He "stood in the midst" of them (the others).

IF the Lord appears unto "two of them" (D), THEN it was before He "stood in the midst" of them. (E) Mark 16:12. Luke 24:13, 36.

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

E: He "stood in the midst" of them.

Johm 20: 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

F: He "stood in the midst" of them "after eight days".

IF the Lord "stood in the midst" of them (E), THEN it was before He "stood in the midst" of them "after eight days." (F) John 20:19, 36

THEREFORE, IF the Lord appears unto "two of them" (D), THEN it was before He "stood in the midst" of them after eight days. (F)

In Matthew Chapter 28 is says that "He is going before you in Galilee; therefor you will see him... And as they went out to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them... and said, "Do not be afraid. God and tell My brethren to go to Galilee""(Matt 28:7-10), and then further in that chapter, while in Galilee, Jesus gives his disciples the 'Great Commission': "...Go therefor and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe..." (Matt 28:18-20). These verses are echoed in the book of Mark, Chapter 16:12-18, almost word for word.

This is also the first time that anyone had seen Jesus since his death, according to Matthew and Luke, and according to my bible[1] since both chapters begin with the header 'He Is Risen'.

In Luke Jesus first appears in a different place, perhaps in Emmaus, which is 7 miles from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13). The disciples returned to Jerusalem (Luke 24:33) Jesus appeared to his disciples, who appeared 'terrified, and frightened, and supposing they had seen a spirit' (Luke 24:37).

When Jesus appeared in front of his disciples in Matthew and began giving the commission '..some doubted[2]. In Mark, when Jesus appeared he 'Rebuked their unbelief, and hardness of heart'(Mark 16:14).

Now, in Luke they were terrified, in Matthew and Mark some doubted what they had seen. If they is more than one commission in two or more different places then why did the disciples appear in some form of doubt or terror. If Jesus did appear to them in two different places to give his disciples two different commissions it makes absolutely no sense for the disciples to show either terror, or doubt in either place.

Even after Jesus' first appearance and commission, according to you, in Luke (and John) why did the disciples doubt Jesus' appearance in the books of Matthew and Mark? They had seen Jesus before. Luke even says that Jesus led them to 'as far as Bethany' So after this first meeting with Jesus, and their first given commission by Jesus the dispels would already at least know how Jesus' post-living body appears to them from the short time they walked with Jesus to Bethany[3].

The disciples' reaction to the newly risen Jesus according to Matthew and Mark doesn't add up. One would think that since the first commission (in Luke when they became believers in his ascension) they wouldn't have any sort of doubt or terror in seeing their Lord, and being given another commission (of you are correct about their being more than one)

IDK: To me it does seem like there is some inconsistency between the appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his death, which would lead me to believe that there is some contradiction between the different accounts, bases solely on the disciples' reactions alone. I highly doubt that the disciples would appear fearful and doubtful no matter which appearance happened first.

If Jesus appeared to them first in Luke they'd know and recognize his figure and Matthew and Luke, and wouldn't doubt they were seeing Jesus in Matthew or Luke, and vice-versa.

And even if they did appear frightened at Jesus' appearance after he rose these guys are supposed to help recruit Jesus' army for the war against Satan. The disciples are a bunch of cowards.

Good Ba'al. When are you going to confront the contradictions that can't be explained if you put words into the bible's mouth?

I see that you think yourself to be quite the showman. I've already told you, I'm not interested in the contradictions that you can claim are simply negations.

What of the situations that are mutually exclusive? I'd normally link to the post where I've already pointed one out for you, but it's only fair that you should have to search through this excessively cluttered thread to refer to what I'm referring to.

I praise Ba'al for your avoidance and demonstration that all you have to provide is stonewalling.

You are not communicating. What you are doing amounts to to preaching, if I am being generous, or masturbation, if I am not being generous. Cut it out and use plain language.

Thanks.

it is not impossible that he is doing bothI am not saying he is a preaching wankeronly that he appears to display all the annoying attributes of a preaching wanker but without the normal social skill set

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

I still don't get it. Based on the emotions and expressions that disciples showed wherever they met Jesus and however many times that gave them a commission, I'm happy to think that the different accounts of a commission is just poor storytelling, and that Jesus only gave one but the authors of the bible got their stories confused with one another.

Just me expressing how i am not convinced with your 'logic', euro.

-M

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.